Natural Grocers Wins GMO Labeling Appeal; Supplement Industry Under Pressure
This article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
In January 2026, the regulatory framework governing the natural products industry encountered significant developments affecting how food and dietary supplements are labeled and regulated. Through a combination of judicial rulings, agency guidance, and legislative proposals, the requirements for transparency and product disclosure are shifting, presenting new compliance considerations for manufacturers and retailers alike.
For CPG brands, ingredient suppliers, and compliance officers, these updates signal a continued move toward explicit, on-package disclosure. Recent events indicate that both the courts and legislators are increasingly prioritizing clear, accessible information for consumers, challenging previous standards that allowed for digital or abbreviated disclosures.
This report outlines two primary developments from the start of the year: the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Natural Grocers regarding Bioengineered (BE) disclosures, and a dual-front regulatory discussion involving the FDA and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) regarding the dietary supplement sector.
Federal Appeals Court Sides with Natural Grocers in GMO Ruling
In a decision delivered on Jan. 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a coalition of plaintiffs led by the Lakewood, CO-based retailer Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage (NYSE: NGVC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The court’s decision effectively strikes down key portions of the USDA’s Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, addressing industry arguments that the previous rules contained exemptions that limited consumer access to information.
The "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard" (NBFDS) has been a subject of debate since its inception. Critics, including the plaintiffs, argued that the USDA’s implementation allowed manufacturers to obscure the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the use of digital links and unfamiliar terminology.
According to a Natural Grocers press release, the court’s ruling necessitates a significant revision of USDA rules. The outcome aligns with a long-standing position of Natural Grocers, the nation’s largest family-operated organic and natural grocery retailer, which has prohibited most GMO ingredients in its stores since 2012 and advocated for clearer labeling standards.
The court’s decision focused on three specific areas where the USDA’s previous rules were found to be insufficient or unlawful. Food and beverage manufacturers must now prepare for a regulatory environment that will likely require strategic adjustments in the next rulemaking cycle.
The "Bioengineered" Terminology Battle
First among the court's findings was the rejection of the USDA’s mandate that strictly required the use of the term "bioengineered." Plaintiffs successfully argued that this term is unfamiliar to the average shopper and infringed on free speech rights by prohibiting the use of terms consumers actually understand.
Under the overturned rules, a manufacturer was forced to use "bioengineered" even if their customer base was far more familiar with "GMO" or "Genetically Engineered." According to the Non-GMO Project, recent market research indicates that while 63% of consumers recognize the term "GMO," only 36% are familiar with "bioengineering." By mandating the lesser-known term, the USDA was seen as complicating disclosure. The ruling now paves the way for retailers and brands to use terms that resonate more clearly with their customers, potentially returning the familiar "GMO" acronym to federal disclosures.
Closing the Digital Divide: The End of QR Code Exclusivity
Operationally, a significant aspect of the ruling is the rejection of standalone QR codes as a sufficient means of disclosure. The USDA had previously allowed companies to forgo on-package text disclosures entirely in favor of a scannable code. Natural Grocers and the Center for Food Safety argued that this practice excluded consumers without smartphones, reliable internet access, or technical literacy—demographics that often include the elderly and rural populations.
The court agreed, ruling that companies cannot rely solely on digital disclosures. This decision impacts the "scan to learn more" approach that some large CPG companies had adopted. Brands that utilized digital links to manage label space must now redesign packaging to include clear, on-pack text or symbols accessible to the naked eye.
Highly Processed Ingredients: No More Hiding
Finally, the court found the USDA was incorrect in exempting highly processed foods—such as sugar from sugar beets or oil from canola—simply because the genetic material might not be detectable in the final refined product.
This "highly refined" exemption had been a major point of contention. Natural Grocers argued that even if the DNA is denatured or removed during processing, the ingredient still originates from a bioengineered crop system. The environmental and agricultural impacts remain, regardless of the final chemical structure of the sugar or oil.
"The court’s rejection of the ‘highly refined’ exemption reinforces an important principle: how food is made matters," noted Charlene Guzman, Communications Director of the Non-GMO Project, in a statement to Nosh. Brands that have relied on this exemption should expect closer scrutiny as the USDA revises its rules, particularly for ubiquitous ingredients like oils, sugars, and starches derived from GMO crops.
Heather Isely, Executive Vice President of Natural Grocers, stated that the decision reflects congressional intent. "Congress never intended to require the use of specific terms, the sole use of QR codes, or the exclusion of ingredients made from highly processed GMO crops," she said. "We are pleased the court recognized the shortcomings of the final rule and mandated corrections. Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process."
George Kimbrell, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety, added that the ruling ensures consumers will eventually see "clear and accurate GMO label information."
The legal victory is consistent with Natural Grocers' long history of rigorous product standards. Founded in 1955 and with 168 stores across 21 states, the company has utilized a dynamic list—"Things We Won't Carry and Why"—to screen products. As stated in WholeFoods Magazine, if a company cannot verify non-GMO status, Natural Grocers will not stock the item.
The Supplement Industry’s Regulatory Tug-of-War
While the food industry assesses the implications of the GMO ruling, the dietary supplement sector is navigating a complex regulatory landscape. On one hand, the FDA is signaling potential flexibility regarding labeling requirements. On the other, Senator Dick Durbin has reintroduced legislation that could impose new registration requirements.
In a letter to the industry issued on Dec. 11, 2025, the FDA announced it is considering amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d). This regulation currently governs the placement of the disclaimer required for structure/function claims under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
Under current rules, supplements making claims such as "Supports heart health" must carry the standard disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Regulations have historically required this disclaimer to appear on every single panel where a claim is made. For small bottles, this often leads to "label clutter," where the same disclaimer is repeated multiple times.
According to the National Law Review, the FDA is looking to remove the "each panel" requirement. Kyle Diamantas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, noted in the letter that revising this regulation would "reduce label clutter and unnecessary costs," aligning with the agency's historical enforcement posture.
Effective immediately, the FDA is exercising "enforcement discretion." The agency will not prioritize penalizing companies that do not repeat the disclaimer on every panel, provided the disclaimer appears at least once and is properly linked to the claims. However, companies should proceed with caution; this is a relaxation of placement frequency, not a removal of the disclaimer itself.
Not all experts view this relaxation as positive. Pieter Cohen, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School expressed concern to Nutraceutical Business Review, warning that reducing disclaimer visibility could mislead consumers. "Then you start saying things such as, ‘We only need it on the actual bottle.’ Then you let the print get smaller," Cohen noted, highlighting the tension between industry simplification and consumer protection.
Durbin Reintroduces the Dietary Supplement Listing Act
While the FDA offers potential labeling flexibility, Congress is considering increased oversight. On Jan. 17, 2026, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act, aimed at modernizing FDA oversight through Mandatory Product Listing (MPL).
The core of the bill would require manufacturers to register products with the FDA, providing product names, ingredient lists, electronic copies of labels, allergen statements, and structure/function claims. This data would populate a public database accessible to consumers.
Senator Durbin’s argument is rooted in the growth of the sector. When DSHEA passed in 1994, there were approximately 4,000 supplements on the market. Today, the FDA estimates there are over 100,000. Durbin argues that the FDA cannot effectively regulate a market it cannot track. "FDA—and consumers—should know what dietary supplements are on the market and what ingredients are included in them. This is FDA’s most basic function," Durbin stated.
As reported by RiverBender, the bill has garnered endorsements from the American Medical Association, US Pharmacopeia, and Consumer Reports. However, the industry itself remains divided, illustrating a strategic difference between its two major trade associations.
A House Divided: CRN vs. NPA
The reintroduction of the Listing Act has reignited a debate between the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Natural Products Association (NPA).
The CRN supports the legislation, viewing transparency as a path to legitimacy and consumer trust. Steve Mister, President and CEO of CRN, stated, "In an era when the Administration has rightly called for more transparency about what we eat and how food is made, it makes sense to apply that same transparency to dietary supplements." The CRN views the registry as a tool to distinguish legitimate, responsible brands from "fly-by-night" actors selling tainted products, arguing that a federal registry is "a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation."
Conversely, the NPA opposes the bill. Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., President and CEO of NPA, characterizes it as unnecessary bureaucracy that burdens lawful companies while failing to stop bad actors. Fabricant argues that DSHEA already gives the FDA ample authority; the agency simply fails to use it.
As detailed in Nutrition Insight, NPA fears that the FDA could use the list to arbitrarily challenge ingredients, citing the recent (and reversed) attempt to ban NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) as an example of regulatory overreach. "This proposal will hand bureaucrats new leverage over lawful products, cool innovation, and punish companies investing in new science," Fabricant warned.
Conclusion: The Transparency Mandate
As the year progresses, the common thread connecting the Natural Grocers victory and the Durbin bill is transparency. In the food aisle, the courts have ruled that accessibility is key—labels must be readable without a smartphone and use terms the public understands. In the supplement aisle, the debate continues over whether transparency requires a federal database of every product on the market.
For business leaders, the takeaway is operational agility. Packaging workflows must be adaptable, supply chain documentation must be robust, and regulatory monitoring must be constant. The "clean label" trend is extending beyond ingredients to include the regulatory integrity of the package itself.
Natural Grocers has signaled it will remain active, with executive Heather Isely stating, "Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process." Brands wishing to remain on the shelves of such high-standard retailers must ensure their transparency efforts meet these rising expectations.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
The Irony of MAHA
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s promises to promote health don’t align with staff cuts & Trump administration actions
By Steven Hoffman
I met Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once, in 2001, when he was speaking at a sustainability conference. At the time, I was publisher of the LOHAS Journal, covering the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability market. At the event, I gave Kennedy a copy of our magazine and expressed my admiration for his work as a leading environmentalist with Riverkeeper, a group that helped clean up the Hudson River, and for being an outspoken advocate for removing toxic chemicals from our food.
Today, Kennedy has built a large following based on these views, with the acronym Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, as the rallying cry for his base, many of whom are leaders in the natural health movement.
Since my interaction with him in 2001, however, Kennedy has also become synonymous with the anti-vaccine movement. This single voter issue, based in large part on misinformation and mistrust, drove a significant number of natural health advocates to back Kennedy when he declared in 2023 as an independent third-party candidate for president. When he ended his candidacy and endorsed Donald Trump in August, many of these natural health voters went with him in hopes that he could change the food and healthcare system for the better as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the new administration.
Unfortunately, Kennedy’s rhetoric is often profoundly at odds with his actions, and with the actions of the wider Trump administration. To cite just one example, while Kennedy says he seeks to improve Americans’ health by bettering their diet, the administration he serves is gutting programs that provide local and organic produce to schools and low-income residents. Likewise, promises to make Americans “healthy again” is at odds with the administration’s roll-back of regulations designed to limit pollution.
Then there are Kennedy’s ideas about vaccines.
Vaccines and vitamins
About the time I met Kennedy, it was reported that the U.S. had eliminated measles due to widespread vaccination efforts. Since then, the anti-vax movement has picked up steam, encouraged in part by Kennedy’s anti-vaccine comments over the years. Now, in 2025, under his watch as head of HHS, the disease has reappeared in the U.S., spreading from a community in Texas to more than 700 cases throughout the U.S. and two reported deaths. Moreover, Kennedy was an anti-vax advocate during a deadly measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019, which killed 83 people in a population of 200,000.
Frankly, no amount of vitamin A—a nutrient Kennedy touted in a March 4 interview on Fox News as a treatment for measles—will stop its spread. Yet, a week after the interview, when he touted the “very good” results of treating measles with vitamin A-rich cod liver oil, demand for the product skyrocketed in Texas, Yahoo News reported. Now, a number of measles patients in Texas are showing signs of vitamin A toxicity, according to the New York Times, which noted that children being treated for measles at Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, Texas, included “a handful of unvaccinated children who were given so much vitamin A that they had signs of liver damage.”
Kennedy’s conflation of anti-vaccine messaging and unsubstantiated claims about using nutritional supplements as a cure for highly infectious diseases does a major disservice to the dietary supplement industry, the health care industry—and to consumers.
In fact, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) was so concerned about how the credibility of nutritional supplements might be affected that it issued a statement on March 26: “While vitamin A is an essential nutrient that plays a critical role in supporting vision, growth, reproduction and immune function, it is not a substitute for vaccination. While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection.”
Andrea Wong, senior vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs for CRN, said, “Measles is a serious and highly contagious viral disease that can lead to severe health complications. Treatment and care for measles should always be conducted under the guidance of a qualified healthcare practitioner. Consumers must make informed decisions and consult qualified health professionals before giving supplements to children—especially in large doses.”
Citing that it was becoming difficult to work with the new HHS secretary, the FDA’s top vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, submitted his resignation on March 29, saying he was willing to address Kennedy’s concerns about the safety of vaccines but concluded that it was not possible. “It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote in his resignation letter. Marks oversaw the FDA’s rapid review and approval of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic and is credited with coining the name and concept for “Operation Warp Speed” under President Trump’s first administration.
Office exodus
The same day, Kennedy announced he was cutting an additional 10,000 jobs from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees several agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The latest cuts come after the departure of roughly 10,000 employees over the past few months as a result of the drive by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut jobs throughout the federal government. In total, the cuts amounted to approximately 25% of HHS’s total workforce being eliminated.
The job cuts, allegedly designed to improve efficiency, may well end up costing the government money. “There’s this narrative being spun that somehow by eliminating jobs and functions that taxpayer dollars are going to be saved or that programs will be more efficient,” a staffer with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who asked for anonymity told Politico. “The reality is the exact opposite.”
Previous cuts to the FDA by DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, resulted in the resignation in February of James Jones, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of food safety and nutrition, including dietary supplements, following what he called “indiscriminate” layoffs of dozens of food safety inspectors. Jones said the cuts would make it “fruitless” to continue in his role. “I was looking forward to working to pursue the department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food,” Jones wrote.
Following news of DOGE’s February cuts at the FDA, which included a number of staff firings at the FDA’s office of Dietary Supplement Programs, CRN expressed concern about the federal agency’s ability to effectively oversee dietary supplements and food safety. “As the FDA deputy commissioner steps down, it’s critical that the agency maintains adequate staffing and expertise to uphold consumer confidence in the food supply,” CRN said in a statement.
“While staffing changes can occur during any presidential transition, it is critical that the FDA maintains the resources, expertise and staffing levels necessary to ensure effective dietary supplement oversight that undergirds consumer confidence in the supplement market,” said Jeff Ventura, CRN’s vice president of communications.
Growing problems
Meanwhile, at USDA, pauses and cuts to funding for school lunch programs, supplemental nutrition assistance programs and organic farming initiatives run counter to MAHA’s avowed efforts to improve public health. Pauses in funding for organic transition and soil conservation programs are leaving farmers on the hook for millions of dollars they invested on the promise of reimbursement, while “accidental” firings of bird flu researchers have raised concerns that the beginnings of a new pandemic may go undetected.
According to reporting by E&E News by Politico in February, federal officials have been withholding funding for two major organic agriculture programs that make payments directly to farmers, jeopardizing millions of dollars in funding ahead of the 2025 planting season. “The pause on the $85 million Organic Market Development Grant program and the $100 million Transition to the Organic Partnership Program has jolted farmers, nonprofits and businesses struggling to make planting and hiring decisions. Even if the pause on funding is lifted, it could put farmers out of business,” wrote reporter Marcia Brown, who noted that the USDA has yet to release funding for the programs, even though federal courts ordered an end to the across-the-board freeze.
USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is under DOGE scrutiny, while the House of Representatives budget plan seeks to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP. Such funding cuts would affect sales for natural and organic food producers, including for such healthy staples as organic dairy and plant-based foods that are frequently purchased by SNAP recipients.
On March 10, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation of $1 billion in federal funding that gave schools and food banks money to purchase food from local farms and ranchers. According to Kevin Hardy, a reporter with Stateline, the funding boosted business for more than 8,000 farmers, providing local food to food banks and schools. “The Trump administration is killing the programs, despite HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign against processed food, which he says is poisoning Americans,” Hardy wrote.
When it comes to our food system, we are all for getting the chemicals out of food, and the FDA’s announcement in January that it would ban Red Dye No. 3 from food products is to be celebrated. Now, if only Kennedy and the Trump administration could start focusing on the other 9,999 questionable chemicals allowed in commercial food production.
Overall, it is difficult to square Kennedy’s rhetoric with the on-the-ground actions of the administration he serves. And that, to me, is the painful irony of MAHA.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, regenerative and sustainable products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.
DOGE Days: From Supplements to Organic Farming, Natural Industry Feels Cuts
By Steven Hoffman
As the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk under the administration of President Donald Trump, cuts jobs and funding for programs at U.S. agencies across the board, natural and organic food and dietary supplement producers are feeling the impact of DOGE cuts to FDA, USDA, USAID and others.
Cuts to FDA have resulted in the resignation of James Jones, FDA’s top official in charge of food safety and nutrition, following what he called “indiscriminate” layoffs of dozens of food safety inspectors. Jones, who joined the agency in 2023, said the cuts would make it “fruitless” to continue his role. “I was looking forward to working to pursue the department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food,” Jones wrote. News of the resignation was first reported on Feb. 17 by FoodFix.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans in mid-February to fire 5,200 probationary employees across its agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The layoffs appeared to focus on employees in the agency’s departments for food, medical devices and tobacco products. It was not clear whether FDA employees who review drugs were exempted. However, Fierce Healthcare reported on Feb. 22 that hundreds of fired FDA probationary workers have received notices from the agency that their terminations were rescinded.
Following news of the DOGE’s layoffs at the FDA, including a number of staff firings at FDA’s office of Dietary Supplement Programs, the Council for Responsible Nutrition expressed concern about the FDA’s ability to effectively oversee dietary supplements and food safety. “As the FDA deputy commissioner steps down, it’s critical that the agency maintains adequate staffing and expertise to uphold consumer confidence in the food supply,” CRN said in a statement.
“While staffing changes can occur during any presidential transition, it is critical that the FDA maintains the resources, expertise and staffing levels necessary to ensure effective dietary supplement oversight that undergirds consumer confidence in the supplement market,” said Jeff Ventura, CRN’s VP of Communications.
USDA Pauses Two Major Organic Programs
At USDA, pauses and cuts in funding for organic transition and soil conservation programs are leaving farmers on the hook for millions of dollars they invested on the promise of reimbursement, while “accidental” firings of bird flu researchers at the agriculture agency have exacerbated the high price and limited availability of eggs. (According to USDA data, the price of eggs increased 38.2% since the beginning of 2025, with the cost of a dozen conventionally produced eggs exceeding of $8 in February 2025.)
Federal officials also are withholding funding for two major organic agriculture programs that make payments directly to farmers, jeopardizing millions of dollars in funding just ahead of the 2025 planting season, reported E&E News by Politico on February 6. “The pause on the $85 million Organic Market Development Grant program and the $100 million Transition to the Organic Partnership Program has jolted farmers, nonprofits and businesses struggling to make planting and hiring decisions. Even if the pause on funding is lifted, it could put farmers out of business,” wrote E&E News reporter Marcia Brown. According to Brown, USDA has yet to release funding for the programs, even though federal courts ordered an end to the across-the-board freeze.
In addition, USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is under DOGE scrutiny, plus the House of Representatives budget plan seeks to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP. Such funding cuts would affect sales for natural and organic food producers, including for such staple healthy products as organic dairy and plant-based foods that are frequently purchased by SNAP recipients.
According to Georgie Lee Smith, who blogs under the moniker Farmer Georgie, the loss of scientists and researchers at USDA agencies including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will have a long-term negative effect on the ability of U.S. agriculture to respond to issues and opportunities, and maintain its position as one of the world’s leading food producers.
Beginning in mid-February, “DOGE took aim at the United States Department of Agriculture, aka the USDA, firing ‘probationary’ employees in what has been described as a ‘blood bath’ of terminations. To be clear, probationary periods can run from one year to three, depending upon the job, and apply even to long-time USDA employees who have recently taken a job promotion. Translation — it’s a lot of folks, many with significant dollars invested into their training,” Smith wrote.
“The researchers and scientists at ARS are on the frontline of nutrition, food safety and quality, livestock and crop production, natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. Along with our land grant university systems, ARS researchers are often the first area of investment into solving critical food and agricultural issues, whether that’s preventing food-borne illness outbreaks to breeding more climate-resilient crops and livestock to new ways to combat pests and diseases impacting food production,” she wrote. Smith also pointed to the risks associated with cutting staff at APHIS, USDA’s agency responsible for combatting the escalating avian flu crisis.
“Many farmers and ranchers are still holding onto hope that the funding freezes that have their grants and cost-share monies tied up are only a bump in the road. Perhaps these USDA terminations will be the same. But I’m afraid that is not the case,” Smith wrote on February 16. “Secretary (of Agriculture) Brooke Rollins issued a press release … that DOGE had terminated 78 USDA contracts totaling more than $132 million, with more than 1,000 contracts still under review. And DOGE tweeted they had eliminated an $8.2 million USDA contract to implement programs administered under Biden’s climate-smart initiative, which had funneled $3 billion in grant funds to agricultural producers, marketing organizations and forest landowners nationwide to support the adoption of climate-smart practices. Again, I can’t help but point out that the large majority of the climate-smart grants specifically supported the same ‘soil health/regenerative ag’ mantra that RFK Jr. is purporting. I feel like we just cut off our noses to spite our faces,” Smith commented.
Dismantling of USAID Impacts U.S. Farmers
For the U.S. agriculture economy, 40% of government food assistance comes from American farms through programs including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which purchased $2 billion in food from American farmers in 2024. As such, the dismantling of USAID, along with its Food for Peace program, has eliminated a valuable market for farmers. It also has resulted in nearly $500 million worth of donated food sitting unused or rotting on docks and in warehouses, according to a report issued on February 10 by the Inspector General of USAID.
“Should parts of USAID be reformed or revisited? Certainly. But shutting down the entire agency in less than two weeks is not the way to do it,” wrote Erin Sikorsky, Director of the Center for Climate and Security and former aide to Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind, in the Feb. 17, 2025, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
“I know Wisconsinites are proud of the role our farm industry plays in supporting food security and preventing starvation worldwide. The Wisconsin Congressional delegation has consistently stood up for Wisconsin farmers, and they must do the same today by opposing this reckless destruction of these life-saving and economically important food aid programs. This action is a reversal of decades of bipartisan support for programs that provide global food aid and prevent starvation, precisely because such programs help American farmers, help those most in need, and prevent conflict and instability that threatens our national security,” Sikorsky wrote.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, sustainable and hemp/CBD products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.